Gaming World Forums
General Category => Entertainment and Media => Topic started by: local_dunce on February 09, 2008, 04:49:41 pm
-
A lot of people worry about book to film adaptations or get pissed off with them when they don't turn out how you originally viewed the film. Books have this awesome ability of allowing you to take your own creative view-point with them so somebody else might read the same book as you and see something completely different. What book to film adaptations do you think went right for you?
I'm making this topic because I recently found out that one of my favourite books has been made into a film and was actually the first film to be bought up at this years sundance film festival. That makes it sound really awesome but after watching some of the footage from the film I feel like it is going to be a completely different viewing experience than how I pictured the book while reading it. My opinion on THIS (http://www.chuckpalahniuk.net/movies/choke-movie/choke) is that I am actually not looking forward to it. They've taken a book that I actually found quite a stressful experience to read, something quite dark and although funny in places, definitely not a comedy, and turned it into a comedy film. There is more footage but I can't find it right now.
Anyway there were a few book to film adaptations that I did really enjoy and I thought this could be a POST YOUR FAVOURITE BOOK TO FILM ADAPTATIONS TOPIC and also a POST YOUR LEAST FAVOURITE BOOK TO FILM ADAPTATIONS.
Here are some of my favourites.
Fight Club
Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas
American Psycho
Alice in Wonderland (Disney)
Apocalypse Now
The Shawshank Redemption
A Scanner Darkly
And here are some of my NOT so favourites:
The Grinch
The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen
The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy
The Golden Compass
The Lion the Witch and The Wardrobe (The Newer One)
And here is one that I thought was a mediocre to bad book and a mediocre to bad film:
The Da Vinci Code
I was originally going to post why I thought these books and films were so good but it turns out I got this far in the topic and am just really lazy. So go ahead and post your own opinions on what were really good book to film adaptations, and why, and any book to film adaptations coming up that you are or aren't looking forward to.
-
Nice topic.
I think people if someone really loves a book and realizes it is going to be adapted into a movie, they should realize that not all of it will work on-screen. People do get pissed off when stuff is changed, and stuff does get changed unnecessarily, but if you keep that in mind when you see the movie, I think you should be alright. In fact, there are some endings to the film adaptations that I thought were better than the books;
e.g. Fight Club by Chuck Palahnuik, Little Children by Tom Perotta.
But anyway, here's my list:
My favourite film adaptations:
1. "Stand By Me" (adapted from Stephen King's short story, "The Body") - Absolutely captures the feeling of nostalgic youth and the danger of a simple childhood adventure put forth in the story.
2. "Little Children" and "Election" (adapted from books of the same name by Tom Perotta) - While it doesn't capture the atmosphere I got from reading the book, I think it comes pretty close. They're both pretty faithful and when they are not, the stories are actually better in the movie than in the book. But then again, Tom Perotta adapted his own work to screenplay, so...
3. "No Country for Old Men" (adapted from book of the same name by Cormac McCarthy) - Okay, I cheated for this because I read the book AFTER I saw the movie, but this was the most faithful adaptation I have ever read. The movie follows the book word for word.
Not so favourite:
1. American Psycho (adapted from book of the same name by Bret Easton Ellis) - Way too watered down from the source material. Didn't feel like it captured the right atmosphere. Bale made a good Bateman but the screenplay was too diluted.
2. The Shining (adapted from book of the same name by Stephen King) - King himself apparently had a problem with the movie. I loved the movie, but I regard the movie and the book as separate entities. I did read the book first and was a bit disappointed with the changes in the movie, but I still loved the movie.
My mind is blank for now... but a bad book that made a really good movie - Forrest Gump. Read it and you'll think oh my god, how did they extract a movie from that shit?
-
The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy movie wasn't really all that bad. It obviously lacked a lot of what made the book great (a lot of that was about the prose, which couldn't have been translated to film elegantly anyway, other than the few "excerpts from the Guide"), but it had the spirit of the book, and the casting was pretty decent, for all I would've preferred more british actors. Arthur was perfectly cast, and Mos Def surprised me as Ford Prefect....I've actually become a fan of his because of his performance as Ford. And I love Zooey Deschanel in pretty much everything I see her in.
I think the big problem with book-to-film adaptations is that fans of the original expect to see the experience they had with the book translated on screen....and that's just not going to happen. Even ignoring how much more time a book has to tell its story, they're different media with different strengths. Novels are great for clever wordplay and engaging the audience's imagination, while film is a lot better at impressing people and being accessible to people who don't have the time or attention span for books.
As a book fan, I think it's better not to expect anything more from a movie adaptation than a pleasant two hours (give or take) with characters who act acceptably like the characters you know, and maintaining the spirit of the original work. If you've got those two things, you ought to have a pretty decent movie. Worth the $4 for admission, and maybe even the $20 for the DVD.
I'm looking forward to a lot of adaptations by Neil Gaiman that are on the way. Coraline sounds like it's going to be spooky and awesome, and it sounds like he's writing an adaptation of the Neverwhere novel (as opposed to a remake of the television series), and those should both rock. I seem to recall hearing that there was an adaptation of Terry Pratchett's The Wee Free Men in the works, too. And of course the Good Omens movie that might never get made, but if Terry Gilliam can ever get the money, should be amazing.
-
1. American Psycho (adapted from book of the same name by Bret Easton Ellis) - Way too watered down from the source material. Didn't feel like it captured the right atmosphere. Bale made a good Bateman but the screenplay was too diluted.
I think the film captured the aspects of the book that it focused on perfectly. I think the violence side of the book was far too graphic and distressing to ever be put to film in a tasteful manner. Reading the book I can remember feeling really distressed at how graphic it really was and there is just no way it could ever be put on film and pass censors or really be acceptable to watch without turning into some fucking HOSTEL II shit. I think the people who made the film decided to focus on a slightly different perspective of the book and I think they pulled that off really well.
-
Many movies I enjoy are based on novels I haven't read. I will only list movies where I've actually read both. Otherwise most of the once Bunnymilk listed are movies I've really enjoyed. Though I really haven't read the books they're based on.
Also The Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy was originally a radio series so it really was the case of a radio series gone novel, gone tv-series, gone movie.
Blade Runner (Based on "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep")
It's just brilliant. It is enough not like the book while still getting that wibe of Dick. It's one of few good Dick adaptations (A Scanner Darkly being another one, where I unfortunately only have read snippets).
Lord of the Rings Trilogy
These three films exceeded all my expecations and it is my opinion that the films are way better than the books. Nothing wrong with the books obviously but the films are just so damn brilliant.
Children of Men
I read the novel ages ago, liking the premise. The film kept that very well. I can't say if it's better than the novel but I bet it is because the novel really dragged out while the film ramps up.
Hogfather
It was on some British TV in two parts so it could be called a miniseries, but really it was a TV-movie split into to parts.
And it was gold.
I'm still waiting for the DVD with subtitles in Swedish so I can show it to most of my family, letting them experience one of the most awesome Christmas-theme films ever.
Stardust
Brilliant book. Brilliant film. One of my favourites from 2007.
Ronja Rövardotter
Then I need to think of stuff that went completely wrong. I can't really come up with all that much right now. Sure. The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe wasn't fantastical (well it was fantastical but it wasn't... uhm... you know) but it wasn't all that horrible. I try to look at the films and novels as completely different entitites, usually looking for either a "feel" that was present in the original or flashy effects that were present in the original. (Narnia & Compass)
Ah now I remember one!
Timeline
Man this film was so horrible, based on something by Michael Crichton (that was equally horrible but in a different way, so I guess it was a faithful adaption after all)
And now looking at films based on author I find.
The Time Machine (2002 version, with Guy Pearce)
So I found some. There's a lot of so-so adaptions though and plenty where I haven't read the book.
EDIT: Also some of my thoughts on adaptions is that I believe that Short Story adaptions is a lot more thankful than novel adaptions. Since in a novel you'll have to cut content to make it fit a movie format. In a high-concept short story you can instead add stuff, expanding the story from it's original short-story format (2001 : A Space Odyssey and, AI - Artificial Intelligence for example)
-
Ronja Rövardotter
All of the movies based on Astrid Lindgrend's books are brilliant in my opinion. Except Karlsson på Taket. I always hated that guy, he's the msot selfish and mean character ever created in the history of litterature.
-
I think the film captured the aspects of the book that it focused on perfectly. I think the violence side of the book was far too graphic and distressing to ever be put to film in a tasteful manner. Reading the book I can remember feeling really distressed at how graphic it really was and there is just no way it could ever be put on film and pass censors or really be acceptable to watch without turning into some fucking HOSTEL II shit. I think the people who made the film decided to focus on a slightly different perspective of the book and I think they pulled that off really well.
I agree with the violence being over-the-top and it would have been some Hostel/Eli Roth shitty forefest if it did. And it did put focus on the satiric aspects of the book and that made me glad. It's just that I didn't think the movie was that well-made and obviously I got a feeling from the book that most likely could not have been replicated by a film adaptation of it. But Bateman just didn't seem as 'inhuman' in the movie - like the part in the book, where in the zoo he kills the child and realizes he has no feelings towards it.
-
All of the movies based on Astrid Lindgren's books are brilliant in my opinion. Except Karlsson på Taket. I always hated that guy, he's the msot selfish and mean character ever created in the history of litterature.
Agreed. I just think that Ronja Rövardotter is that small amount better than all the others, so it's the only I mentioned here.
-
Children of Men
I read the novel ages ago, liking the premise. The film kept that very well. I can't say if it's better than the novel but I bet it is because the novel really dragged out while the film ramps up.
My friend recently read the book and told me he much prefered the film. He's an English student and he's all YEA BOOKS LOVE THEM BOOKS so I'll take his word for it.
Hogfather
It was on some British TV in two parts so it could be called a miniseries, but really it was a TV-movie split into to parts.
And it was gold.
Yeah it was pretty good huh. I hear there's Colour of Magic and Light Fantasic adaptations on the way from the same people which will be interesting/awesome.
On the whole though I really can't be doing with book to film adaptations. I love books and I love movies but god damn is it disappointing sometimes. The biggest disappointment in this department recently was The Golden Compass because I love those books so much and that movie was terrible in so many different terrible ways.
-
I have to agree with the Golden Compass but man the big thing for me that was a massive turn off to that film. The thing that made me say "holy fuck what are these people thinking." The thing that really pushed it off the edge of the cliff for me was the fact that the whole ending of the book was chopped off and left out completely. Like the big climatic ending was given the cleaver and replaced with a "To be continued..."
-
Eragon... love the book... the movie was nothing like it.
-
Eragon... love the book... the movie was nothing like it.
Ahahaha, totally. Except that the book was okay, at best. Honestly, I couldn't get through the second, because it was just too... verbose, at times. I know that sounds weird, when describing a book, but I kind of felt the same way when I was reading The Hobbit: when it takes ten pages to describe a tea party, I'm putting down the book.
Also, Jumper the movie was pretty much nothing like the book at all. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it's just so detached that they can be regarded as separate entities.
I have to agree with the Golden Compass but man the big thing for me that was a massive turn off to that film. The thing that made me say "holy fuck what are these people thinking." The thing that really pushed it off the edge of the cliff for me was the fact that the whole ending of the book was chopped off and left out completely. Like the big climatic ending was given the cleaver and replaced with a "To be continued..."
Seriously, when I saw this in theatres I wanted to punch someone in the face. I literally screamed "WHAT" at the screen very loudly. Surprisingly enough, I wasn't the only one that did so.
There's probably more that I can't think of right now. :)
-
Guys, JJ Abrams is making a Dark Tower movie (or series, or something).
http://www.cloverfieldnews.com/
http://www.tv.com/story/8764.html
-
Others might disagree, but I love David Lynch's Dune. I think it's much better than the book (I hated the book) and has a really great gritty visual style and mood. The set, costumes, and music were all top notch, especially compared the recent mini-series. The movie's intro (with the space guild people and the navigator) is one of my favorite movie scenes for some reason. I also liked some of the cast; Kenneth McMillan as as grotesque and mad Baron Vladimir Harkonnen was an excellent choice!
I still agree with people who hate Dune because of the rushed and confusing screenplay, but it's really more of a unique visual experience rather than something that's meant to have any depth. Like I said, I hated the novel(s), so I didn't mind any butchery they did to it in the process of adapting it into a movie.
Other than Dune, I generally avoid reading something that was adapted into a good movie and would rather just see it on screen (saves time!), but a notable exception is Fight Club. I really liked both the novel and the film, and while the movie's ending was great from a visual and aesthetic point of view, I liked the novel's ironic ending more. They're too different things though, so I don't think I can compare them.
Oh, there's LotR too, I never liked the LotR books and I didn't like the movies either, but I do think it was a faithful and good adaption. As boring the first two movies were, it was still much better than reading Tolkien describe every rock in a forest in great detail. Long movies bore me, even good ones. I was never able to see Forrest Gump in one setting although I really liked it.
I've read The Time Traveler's Wife recently and really liked it. They're working on a movie adaption for this year and it's hard to go wrong with it because the story easily lends itself to the romantic comedy genre. I really don't know anything about the director (Robert Schwentke, directed Flightplan and Tattoo) but I always thought Eric Bana was a good actor.
-
Others might disagree, but I love David Lynch's Dune. I think it's much better than the book (I hated the book)
:shocking:
I thought that I already posted in this topic, but I guess not. The best book to film adaptation I've seen was James Clavell's Shogun (released in 1980 - but you can't even tell. It looks like it was made in the 90s to me). The movie is epic (it was split up into ten 60 minute parts and aired on tv as a mini-series) and it follows the book very closely. I highly recommend it, even to those who have never read this masterpiece.
Here's the basic plot blurb:
John Blackthorne, an English ship pilot, whose vessel wrecked upon the Japanese coast in the early 17th century is forced to deal with the two most powerful men in Japan in those days. He is thrown in the midst of a war between Toranaga and Ishido, who struggle for the title of Shogun which will give ultimate power to the one who possesses it.
Go see it. You won't be disappointed. After the 9 hours and 10 minutes you spend watching it you become depressed that it's over.. the characters are all developed superbly and the emotional dramas and conflicts that unfold are riveting. I honestly cannot praise this film and book enough.
-
atlas shrugged
-
I honestly didn't know Children of Men was based on a book until I read this topic.
I also didn't know No Country For Old Men was based on a book until after watching the movie.
With that said, I think the only people who truly dislike book to movie adaptions are the ones who read the books first. The main themes are almost always lost in the transition (such as the anarchy rules message in V for Vendetta or the dogmatic christian satire in The Golden Compass) but overall, the films do a good job (mostly) in crunching 500 pages of material into a 2 hour flick. When I watch a movie based on a book I loved, I try not to think about it as an adaption so much as a re-imagining. When you don't have the original source material in mind, it makes the stuff you're watching much more bearable.
With that said, my favorite adaptions are Stardust and James and the Giant Peach.
-
V for Vendetta was a pretty decent book imo, but the movie happened to be one of the few in my like that blew me away.
I can remember sitting in the front row of the theatre during the climax at the end, and no book will give me any kind of feeling like that.
Also, I thought the Mist was a good book, but the movie was much better. Parts like the uprising in the store, and the giant walking creature at the end weren't described in a way that amplified the situation for me.
-
Eragon... love the book... the movie was nothing like it.
Dude, they are both completely awful. Seriously, they are embarassing even by the standards that the fantasy genre usually sets for itself. Christopher Paolini is a juvenile chode that wouldn't have ever been published if not for mommy and daddy.
Yes, I really hate Eragon. I picked it up at a train station in India just before heading out into the BACK COUNTRY for a week and it's all I had to read and holy fuck it is terrible.
HOWEVER!!!!
The movie, somehow, managed to be worse.
-
So BunnyMilk is pretty excited they are going to release this (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1024715/).
This'll be probably quite... interesting.
-
Dude, they are both completely awful. Seriously, they are embarassing even by the standards that the fantasy genre usually sets for itself. Christopher Paolini is a juvenile chode that wouldn't have ever been published if not for mommy and daddy.
Yes, I really hate Eragon. I picked it up at a train station in India just before heading out into the BACK COUNTRY for a week and it's all I had to read and holy fuck it is terrible.
HOWEVER!!!!
The movie, somehow, managed to be worse.
I thought it was awesome. Yeah it not really original at all... now your making me second guess why I like it THANKS ALOT!
Still getting the 3rd and 4th books though so I can see what gonna happen.
-
About American Psycho, I thought that the movie really did capture the essence of the Bateman character well, in the fact that he is completely out of control and he can't do anything to stop himself. The character was like a train wreck ad infinitum, and there was no way to stop it. I think that focussing on the violent or tortuous apsects of the character is unnescessary compared to portraying this fact.